The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[francypants]

Thought this was supposed to be The Royal Family thread !

 

[hackey lad]

1 minute ago, francypants said:

Thought this was supposed to be The Royal Family thread !

 

[trastrick]

43 minutes ago, altus said:

At least he did get more votes than anyone else. Strange you can remember that far back but not to the more recent election when Trump won despite Hillary getting more votes than him. That's a much better demonstration of the problems with first past the post systems.

Huh?

 

Now why would you falsely claim I can't remember that "Trump won despite Hillary getting more votes than him"?

 

 

[Padders]

15 minutes ago, francypants said:

Thought this was supposed to be The Royal Family thread !

 

Lerrum get on with it,

I'm sick to the back teeth of the disparaging, slurs, and insults directed at my ancesters.

None so brave on here as "SIR RAYMONDO de PADDERS."

[poppet2]

Royal protection officer talks of the selfishness of Prince Andrew.  2.49 mins

 

[altus]

On 23/02/2022 at 11:45, trastrick said:

Huh?

 

Now why would you falsely claim I can't remember that "Trump won despite Hillary getting more votes than him"?

Sorry, I should have put sarcasm tags around it. I know you'll have remembered it, I was highlighting the fact you used a poor example of your point because the obviously better example would mean you saying something negative about Trump.

 

Anyway, back on topic. If Liz dies because Charlie gave her covid does that count as regicide? I know bumping off the incumbent was a traditionally acceptable way of triggering a succession but what's the legal situation on that these days?

[trastrick]

49 minutes ago, altus said:

Sorry, I should have put sarcasm tags around it. I know you'll have remembered it, I was highlighting the fact you used a poor example of your point because the obviously better example would mean you saying something negative about Trump.

 

Anyway, back on topic. If Liz dies because Charlie gave her covid does that count as regicide? I know bumping off the incumbent was a traditionally acceptable way of triggering a succession but what's the legal situation on that these days?

You're wrong again. 

 

Trump got 47% of the popular vote in losing the election. Which is more than Clinton got (43%) when he won. I'd say that can be considered a positive for Trump, not a negative.

 

My point was that the popular vote is not how Presidents are elected.

 

Pundits blame Hillary for chasing the popular vote in guaranteed States like New York and California, when should should have been in flyover States like Wisconsin and the Mid West and South.

 

Trump went after every Electoral College vote, no matter how few were available. It worked.

 

[altus]

47 minutes ago, trastrick said:

You're wrong again. 

 

Trump got 47% of the popular vote in losing the election. Which is more than Clinton got (43%) when he won. I'd say that can be considered a positive for Trump, not a negative.

When Clinton won in 1992, Ross Perot took 18.9% of the vote. Trump didn't face a significant third candidate soaking up nearly 20% of the vote in either of the elections he stood in, so your comparing Trump's numbers against Clinton's isn't a fair comparison. Trump wouldn't even have got 40% of the vote if there'd been a Perot like candidate in the elections he stood in. That is particularly the case as Perot presented himself as the political outsider, just like Trump, and would certainly have appealed more to Trump voters than either Hillary or Biden ones.

 

Quote

My point was that the popular vote is not how Presidents are elected.

 

Pundits blame Hillary for chasing the popular vote in guaranteed States like New York and California, when should should have been in flyover States like Wisconsin and the Mid West and South.

 

Trump went after every Electoral College vote, no matter how few were available. It worked.

The US version of first past the post is even worse than the UK one. At least in this country there are approximately the same number of voters per representative. In the US some states have about 4 times as many voters per representative than others.

[trastrick]

4 hours ago, altus said:

When Clinton won in 1992, Ross Perot took 18.9% of the vote. Trump didn't face a significant third candidate soaking up nearly 20% of the vote in either of the elections he stood in, so your comparing Trump's numbers against Clinton's isn't a fair comparison. Trump wouldn't even have got 40% of the vote if there'd been a Perot like candidate in the elections he stood in. That is particularly the case as Perot presented himself as the political outsider, just like Trump, and would certainly have appealed more to Trump voters than either Hillary or Biden ones.

 

The US version of first past the post is even worse than the UK one. At least in this country there are approximately the same number of voters per representative. In the US some states have about 4 times as many voters per representative than others.

Your subjective definitions of words like "fair" bear no resemblance to the English language I'm used to speaking and hearing wherever I go in the World.

 

We have no benchmark interpretation of common terms.

 

So to continue this discussion would be another pointless exercise in off topic semantics.

 

Have a nice day! 

 

 

[hackey lad]

2 hours ago, West 77 said:

Happy Birthday to the Queen.

 

Long Live The Queen.